| ▲ | anonfordays 7 days ago |
| Does the following phenomenon have a name? Open an article about the detrimental politicization of something, click to the social media profile of the offender and you know with high certainty the exact kind of poster they are and posts they make/repost. |
|
| ▲ | 4bpp 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This sounds like what you would expect to see if everything subject to politicisation is politicised in a direction opposed by the same "kind of poster". I imagine you could observe the same sort of predictability if you looked at the social media profiles of anyone writing an article that politicization of something is actually unproblematic or good. When it is this easy to delineate and stereotype those for and those against a measure, the appropriate word is polarisation. |
|
| ▲ | tylersmith 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes, it's called bias. |
| |
| ▲ | anonfordays 7 days ago | parent [-] | | It's accurate, so by definition it cannot be bias. | | |
| ▲ | jpollock 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a cognitive bias, since we remember the events that match our expectations and don't keep track of experiment over time. | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This is a rather large assumption. I have had plenty of times when I thought I had noticed a trend of some sort and turned out to be mistaken, and so stopped relying on the heuristic. Insisting that everyone is biased (as opposed to observing that anyone can be) is a good way to filter out unexpected and perhaps unwelcome observations. |
| |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You perceive it to be accurate, that doesn't mean it is accurate. Furthermore, these sorts of things are highly subject to post-rationalization. Did you write down on a piece of paper what you expected before you clicked? Or did you just click and think to yourself "yup, that's what I expected"? |
|
|
